I'm not too concerned about 2011. Making the finals seems the next step if our improvement continues and I'd think we can do that even with our forward line clearly lacking what Bailey has described as the "get out" forward.

What would concern me is if we get burnt by the unfavourable market conditions and do one or more of the following:

* agree to part with a valuable pick/handy player

* agree to pay that absurd $400,000 salary being talked about

* give him three years

One or two of these might be OK if Hale turns out to be just the player we're hoping for. If he isn't, we're left with a liability. Nothing retards progress more effectively than a mature player you've invested heavily in under-performing. If you drop him, you're paying plenty for a VFL player. If you play him, you're holding back a player who actually deserves a game.

I can live without a big forward-line body player for 2011 if a premium-priced Hale is the one and only option.

This post makes no sense to me whatsoever....

You're not concerned about getting a tall foward/ruck in the short term, so we don't need to give up something now... what about next year or the year after?

You'll be OK with the trade if Hale addresses the need identified, but otherwise we've been burnt... I think it's safe to say that's a pretty unadventurous assumption you've made there.

You don't want to give up anything or pay too much in terms of money or years.... safe to say the only players you'll get to the club on that basis will be players other clubs would otherwise delist.

I'm not too concerned about 2011. Making the finals seems the next step if our improvement continues and I'd think we can do that even with our forward line clearly lacking what Bailey has described as the "get out" forward.

What would concern me is if we get burnt by the unfavourable market conditions and do one or more of the following:

* agree to part with a valuable pick/handy player

* agree to pay that absurd $400,000 salary being talked about

* give him three years

One or two of these might be OK if Hale turns out to be just the player we're hoping for. If he isn't, we're left with a liability. Nothing retards progress more effectively than a mature player you've invested heavily in under-performing. If you drop him, you're paying plenty for a VFL player. If you play him, you're holding back a player who actually deserves a game.

I can live without a big forward-line body player for 2011 if a premium-priced Hale is the one and only option.

Well.. firstly..Im not prepared to write off any more years...they are all now ladder climbing ones. Weve done all the hard time rebuilding..and wallowing at the bottom. Were now ascending and thats a journey still underways.

I do agree being in the top 8 and finals is the next progression. But Im sure the club does want to just make up numbers here..it wants to be finals-competitive.

No trade is likely to be win/lose...i.e you do ( Im afraif ) have to give up something to get anything decent ..( unless trading with Carlton of course..lol ) But reality is Hale ( or anyone worth having ) will command a price of some description. Obviously the destination clubs of our trading might vary as to requirements..thats also a reality.

I think Hale has two years left ?>?? Would think as others suggest here and elsewhere that maybe North might like to find some salary breathing room...and unload on favourable terms. just as a what -if... they paid 50-75 p.a as a sweetener ? purely supposition.. but just as a question ?

Only offer two years to match the previous contract ( if correct ) Two years ought to be reasonable enough..others agree ?

Only offer two years to match the previous contract ( if correct ) Two years ought to be reasonable enough..others agree ?

Well yes, but it depends on what the sticking point in terms of negotiations might be. I wouldn't be offering any more unless it was the deal breaker, (but then you'd be also looking at reducing the payments). I'd love North to pay a % of his wage, but clubs hate doing this and will want to free up their books. 400K may seem steep when compared to what other's might be getting, but the club has had to front load contracts anyway so I doubt this is as big an issue for the club as it is for many supporters who don't think that Hale should get more than another player (insert name here).

Edited October 4, 201014 yr by grazman

Hampson I rate as a good ruckman, but what information have you to suggest that he's cheaper than Hale or going to be a better forward (remembering that Hale at least has several games that he's kicked multiple goals in).

I can't be sure that Hampson will turn out to be a better forward than Hale, but would have been confident he would have been a cheaper option had Jacobs intended to stay at Carlton.

From the little that I know Hampson is rated highly at Carlton as you'd expect from a first round draft pick. Have you heard he isn't happy and wants to move?

If Jacobs had stayed, Hampson would have faced a future where battling to edge past two young, talented ruckmen just to get a game was going to be the norm. I would have thought he was ripe for the picking for a club like the Demons where he wouldn't be getting "more opportunities" but "definite opportunity".

The difficulty in trading isn't identifying the type of player you need, but having them available at an affordable price. I'm not sure Hampson is.

Fair call. As I said, Hampson was merely type I would be looking for, and a name that looked feasible up until a couple of weeks ago.

I would say that the other difficulty in trading is knowing when to shoulder arms.

David Hale, to me, is like the last ball before lunch on the first day of a Test, a rubbish delivery well outside off that you know will border on being a wide. Why swipe at it just to get to your fifty?

David Hale, to me, is like the last ball before lunch on the first day of a Test, a rubbish delivery well outside off that you know will border on being a wide. Why swipe at it just to get to your fifty?

Maybe, but then maybe it's not a test match either, but a 20/20. As for Hampson as you say IF Jacobs had stayed, everything else after that is academic and that's where the reality of footy is different for a club than for a fan.

Have people given up on Stef Martin ?

Have people given up on Stef Martin ?

has the club ?

Well yes, but it depends on what the sticking point in terms of negotiations might be. I wouldn't be offering any more unless it was the deal breaker, (but then you'd be also looking at reducing the payments). I'd love North to pay a % of his wage, but clubs hate doing this and will want to free up their books. 400K may seem steep when compared to what other's might be getting, but the club has had to front load contracts anyway so I doubt this is as big an issue for the club as it is for many supporters who don't think that Hale should get more than another player (insert name here).

Ironically from a Nth Standpoint Hale is probably a list clogger ( of sorts) Hes not quite what they want..( only they know what they want ) hes not exactly in favour there..and hes chewing up dolleros.

I dont think theyll haggle too much if even a so -so deal can be made. Its win win.

This post makes no sense to me whatsoever....

Why thank you.

You're not concerned about getting a tall foward/ruck in the short term, so we don't need to give up something now... what about next year or the year after?

The next year, and the year after that, our existing group of talls will have progressed another year and there will be other trade opportunities to look at.

Are you saying that our need for a ruck/forward is so desperate that it's now or never?

You'll be OK with the trade if Hale addresses the need identified, but otherwise we've been burnt... I think it's safe to say that's a pretty unadventurous assumption you've made there.

What's the alternative? Watch Hale fail, give a shrug and say "worth a try"?

The only assumption I'm making is that David Hale is not a very good AFL-level footballer. If this isn't the forum to make such an opinion known, let me know and I'll humbly shut up.

You don't want to give up anything or pay too much in terms of money or years.... safe to say the only players you'll get to the club on that basis will be players other clubs would otherwise delist.

You're trying to put words in my mouth about my general attitude to trading based on my attitude to trading for David Hale.

For the record, here's my attitude to trading:

It's a mug's game. Only get involved when you can identify the mugs.

Two points. How many Kangaroos games do Melbourne supporters actually watch? Surely the football department have done their research on this player. I'm happy to leave it up to them.

Maybe, but then maybe it's not a test match either, but a 20/20. As for Hampson as you say IF Jacobs had stayed, everything else after that is academic and that's where the reality of footy is different for a club than for a fan.

I wasn't arguing that Hampson was THE bloke to go after. I was trying to suggest that we shouldn't be shy about going for another talented/accomplished ruckman with scope to play forward.

I'm not sure where this idea that I'm saying I know better than the FD comes from.

I'm merely putting up my view, based on what I've seen of David Hale. As I said before, if this isn't the place for that, give me a yell and I'll bugger off.

ok..heres food for thought..

Some are suggestting that Hale isnt good enough at AFL for us to consider.

The MFC have just let brad Miller go. gave 110% Just won casey's B and F.. great club man etc etc.. now off to the Toiges it seems...but wasnt good enough for the MFC to keep..

now with that in mind this same club ( and personnel ) are looking at Hale as more than OK..worth getting !! So in my mind our club IS saying hes OK at AFL..after all we have set the bar somewhere and Millerr failed.

So I...nor anyone else here has to say hes ok...the club already has !!

Hell, advanced hair think enough of him to make him an ambassador!

Touche!

... based on what I've seen of David Hale ...

What exactly have you seen of Hale?

What exactly have you seen of Hale?

advanced hair, yeah yeah.

Have people given up on Stef Martin ?

No, I would hope not but I he is behind the 8 ball.

Stef is a work in progress that for many reasons went backwards this year. I think we need something/someone to help Jamar more than he got this year.

Could a mix of Spencer & Martin step up? Perhaps, but I have my doubts that either will accelerate their progress in 2011.

What exactly have you seen of Hale?

No matter what I say - I'm actually a forward scout; a good mate barracks for North and I see them whenever they're not playing at the same time as the Demons; I watch as much footy as I can; or I once took a glance at his Dream team stats - someone will consider me ill-equipped to rate him.

For the last time, I'm not here to say I know better than others - certainly not the FD.

I'm here to discuss footy and the last time I looked there was more than one side to just about every argument.

So far the arguments for going pretty hard at Hale during the trade period haven't convinced me. But that's only my opinion. Not the gospel truth, not an objective fact, not a slight on the Melbourne Football Club... nothing but one perspective in a discussion.

No, I would hope not but I he is behind the 8 ball.

Stef is a work in progress that for many reasons went backwards this year. I think we need something/someone to help Jamar more than he got this year.

Could a mix of Spencer & Martin step up? Perhaps, but I have my doubts that either will accelerate their progress in 2011.

Someone will point out that I am wrong but I remember Martin doing his best work in the backline.

I think he was a failure whenever we played him in the forward half. He was injured most of 2010

so I would like to see how his 2011 season pans out but I have to say I not expecting much.

Love him to fire but there are big doubts in my mind.

No matter what I say - I'm actually a forward scout; a good mate barracks for North and I see them whenever they're not playing at the same time as the Demons; I watch as much footy as I can; or I once took a glance at his Dream team stats - someone will consider me ill-equipped to rate him.

For the last time, I'm not here to say I know better than others - certainly not the FD.

I'm here to discuss footy and the last time I looked there was more than one side to just about every argument.

So far the arguments for going pretty hard at Hale during the trade period haven't convinced me. But that's only my opinion. Not the gospel truth, not an objective fact, not a slight on the Melbourne Football Club... nothing but one perspective in a discussion.

I'm just trying weight your opinion (and that of others who are raising objections) - I freely admit I haven't seen enough of him especially recently to have any informed view. I'm strongly behind the idea of recruiting his type but because of my lack of real knowledge about him I can't make a judgement of him specifically.

Do we still want him after the rule changes? Can we afford to carry two pure rucks with a 3 man bench or are better off running with a mobile pinch hitter.

I'm just trying weight your opinion (and that of others who are raising objections) - I freely admit I haven't seen enough of him especially recently to have any informed view. I'm strongly behind the idea of recruiting his type but because of my lack of real knowledge about him I can't make a judgement of him specifically.

I'm strongly behind the idea of recruiting a strong-bodied forward who likes to stay mostly inside fifty. If they're capable in the ruck, as well, all the better. I just worry that Hale is that "type" in name only.

For what it's worth, I reckon I saw most of Hale's 12 AFL games this year, admittedly probably only three at the ground. I saw a lot more of him in 2009 and 2008.

Do we still want him after the rule changes? Can we afford to carry two pure rucks with a 3 man bench or are better off running with a mobile pinch hitter.

If he's up at FF, that is where he rests.

He switches into the ruck when Jamar needs a breather.

I'm strongly behind the idea of recruiting a strong-bodied forward who likes to stay mostly inside fifty. If they're capable in the ruck, as well, all the better. I just worry that Hale is that "type" in name only.

For what it's worth, I reckon I saw most of Hale's 12 AFL games this year, admittedly probably only three at the ground. I saw a lot more of him in 2009 and 2008.

That's a fair bit of Hale.

Have you seen that the AFL has restricted interchange to 3 and a substitute next year - I think forward who can ruck is vital - 2 ruckmen are dead. Rucking ability is not nice-to-have it's necessary.

That's a fair bit of Hale.

Have you seen that the AFL has restricted interchange to 3 and a substitute next year - I think forward who can ruck is vital - 2 ruckmen are dead. Rucking ability is not nice-to-have it's necessary.

And if that sways the FD to pay over the odds for Hale, so be it.

If Hale comes to the Demons and can break even in the ruck, and create a genuine contest up forward, I'll be stoked. I just doubt his ability to do either consistently, let alone both on the same day.

Edited October 4, 201014 yr by The Albino Warrior

The club probably had the new rules firmly in mind in considering Hale